And you are sure? I think the vast majority of conservatives and even libertarians will vote for the GOP nominee over Obama. Obama's just that bad.

Quote:

Such as?

Returning to the gold standard? Getting rid of Medicaid? Thinking that the world will be better off if we have no foreign military presence.

Quote:

"Any government, that can, for a day, enforce its own laws, without appealing to the people, (or to a tribunal fairly representing the people,) for their consent, is, in theory, an absolute government, irresponsible to the people, and can perpetuate its power at pleasure." -- Lysander Spooner

See the quote above. Every American citizen is Constitutionally guaranteed a trial by jury before the government can carry out punishment.

So you're saying that an American citizen who literally takes up arms agains the nation (on foreign soil) deserves a freaking jury trial? Yeah, we just disagree there. There are special circumstances and exceptions, and this is one of them.

Quote:

A good place to start would be to call for an audit of the Fed. And Ron Paul has done that very thing. The point is it's a problem, he's talking about it, and nobody else is.

He wants to END the Fed, not just audit it. He wants to return to the gold standard. Both are nuts.

He is for bailouts. He says he would have done them differently, but he believes they were and are necessary. "Essential" is the word he used.

Come on. How can you not see that's out of context? He was talking about bailouts that were to save the financial system. He even talked about his opposition to bailouts for any other reason. And you know what? He's right.

Quote:

So state governments can force people to buy certain products or services? Really?

Yes, really. I don't think they should, but they can. The states have (or should have) far more power than the feds do.

Quote:

Tell me one thing Ron Paul advocates that is unconstitutional.

I didn't claim that. I said he goes much further, as in he's not JUST for "following the constitution." He's isolationist. He doesn't believe in using American power to protect our interests and security. He wants to end Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. He goes too far.

Quote:

The golden rule is insane?

Yes, when it comes to foreign policy, it's batshit crazy. The world simply doesn't work that way. His Cuba position is a perfect example. Have things gotten better in Cuba since we started lightening our stance under Obama? No. They've gotten worse. Has Iran started behaving now that Obama has snubbed Israel and all but ruled out military action? No. They've become emboldened. Did the Soviets become weaker when we pursued Détente? No, they became more aggressive. The problem with Ron Paul is he doesn't believe that a strong America is good for world peace. He thinks that we are the provocateur of all the problems we face, from terrorism to Iran. He thinks that the only reason Iran wants a nuclear weapon is because we're threatening them. "If we would just back off, they'd back off. Everyone will leave us alone." That's the general idea, and it's clearly wrong. If all Ron Paul wanted to do is restructure our foreign presence to have it better reflect 21st Century needs (Korea and Germany troop levels come to mind) and argue for less intervention, that would be one thing. But he goes right up the ladder, past the diving board, up to high dive, and takes a flying leap as the pool is empty. He's just wrong.

Quote:

I've never claimed they are the same. I have, however, shown how they agree on many important issues, most of which you dismiss or believe are unimportant.

Oh yes you did. You've argued that there is no difference that matters. That is simply false. There are huge differences. You simply don't care because if it's not RON PAUL (RON PAUL! RON PAUL!) it's not good enough. Mitt Romney does not equal Ron Paul, therefore Mitt Romney equals Obama. Sorry dude...I like you and all, but that's the logic of a true Paul Tard.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Paul's foreign policy is not only his sanest position, it's the sanest position on foreign policy from anywhere in the US. Safety by threat is what's insane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

On this we can agree.

And you're both wrong. His position is the most dangerous of any candidate, including Obama. That doesn't mean he's all wrong, of course. We should reduce and restructure our foreign presence. We should definitely not have as much intervention (example: Libya). But the rest of it is simply crazy. We will not be left alone if we bring all the troops home and demilitarize. The world will not be better. That's because American strength is a good thing. As Reagan once said "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

So you're saying that an American citizen who literally takes up arms agains the nation (on foreign soil) deserves a freaking jury trial? Yeah, we just disagree there. There are special circumstances and exceptions, and this is one of them.

Well I agree that it would be pointless for a government that is being rebelled against to be assumed objective in such a trial, I think we can all agree that it is the right of the people to throw off their government. I mean for goodness sake this country was founded on that very premise!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He wants to END the Fed, not just audit it. He wants to return to the gold standard. Both are nuts.

No, they are not. Some in-depth study of banking and monetary history not to mention a true understanding of what The Fed does to the average citizen of this country would be of great benefit to you. A free-market banking system (sans central bank) and monetary competition would be lead to much greater stability and much less inflation. While I don't agree on a mandated gold (or any other monetary) standard, history suggests that gold would likely evolve as a defacto standard.

Because you say so? You can't simply disagree? Those who don't hold the same view as you must be wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

His position is the most dangerous of any candidate, including Obama.

We disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

We will not be left alone if we bring all the troops home and demilitarize.

First I agree we would not be left alone entirely...but we'd have fewer problems by reducing our fucking around in other countries. Second, Paul doesn't call for de-militarization as much as a return to armed neutrality.

Because you say so? You can't simply disagree? Those who don't hold the same view as you must be wrong?

[/quote]

OK. In my opinion, you're both wrong. Better?

Quote:

We disagree.

See above.

Quote:

First I agree we would not be left alone entirely...but we'd have fewer problems by reducing our fucking around in other countries.

Opinion. And, one not supported by an understanding of history.

Quote:

Second, Paul doesn't call for de-militarization as much as a return to armed neutrality.

Yes he does. He rails against the size of the military, foreign bases, troops on other nations. He has stated that the reason other nations wish to harm the US is because "we bomb them all the time."

Quote:

This is a matter of debate not fact.

It's my opinion. If you want to make the case that I'm wrong, go ahead. I'm listening.

Quote:

I disagree.

So does Ron Paul. So does Barack Obama. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is my strong feeling you are absolutely wrong. American strength is good for the world. It was good in World War I and World War 2. It was good during the cold war. America, for all its flaws, is basically a force for the good in the world. We need to defend freedom and democracy, because without us, no one else will.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yes he does. He rails against the size of the military, foreign bases, troops on other nations.

Well criticizing the size of the military is not the same thing as calling for complete demilitarization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He has stated that the reason other nations wish to harm the US is because "we bomb them all the time."

As I recall, he's simply stating what the CIA and other intelligence agencies have already stated. He's paraphrasing the concept of "blowback" that they have outlined.

It's my opinion. If you want to make the case that I'm wrong, go ahead. I'm listening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're entitled to your opinion, but it is my strong feeling you are absolutely wrong.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

American strength is good for the world. It was good in World War I and World War 2. It was good during the cold war.

I think this might have been a much more true statement in the past and much less so now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

America, for all its flaws, is basically a force for the good in the world.

Unfortunately its flaws are rising to the top. This has a tendency to happen in people, companies and nations when they get to the top and become the all powerful one. The power goes to their head. Their flaws start to become much more prominent and magnified. The US has become more empire-like and bully-like in the decades since WW2. This is the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

We need to defend freedom and democracy, because without us, no one else will.

Well I don't care about democracy, but freedom...sure. If that's what we were actually doing. But again, our foreign policy has changed quite a bit over the decades to one where we'll defend and try to control any regime that does and gives us what we want rather than truly defending "freedom and democracy."

So we disagree that the US you're talking about is the same US that's operating throughout the world today. I agree it might have been much more like that in the past but much less like it today.

Well criticizing the size of the military is not the same thing as calling for complete demilitarization.

I didn't say "complete demilitarization." But he's close enough to that for it to be dangerous.

Quote:

As I recall, he's simply stating what the CIA and other intelligence agencies have already stated. He's paraphrasing the concept of "blowback" that they have outlined.

Oh COME ON. You're telling me the CIA and "other intelligence agencies" believe the only reason we are disliked by certain nations is because we're "bombing them all the time?" That is completely disingenuous.

Quote:

It's my opinion. If you want to make the case that I'm wrong, go ahead. I'm listening.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

I think this might have been a much more true statement in the past and much less so now.

We agree there, but not for the same reason. I see us not standing up for our allies and ideals the way we used to. We're snubbing Israel, treating Iran ("the tiny country") with kid gloves, getting walked on by China and Russia, etc. We're not respected. We're seen as weak and in decline. And that has nothing to do with treatment of terror detainees or troops in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with Iraq. It's about the perception this administration has created...that of a paper tiger. Obama even talks about how we shouldn't be the military and economic leader of the world, but rather one of a "chorus of voices."

Quote:

Unfortunately its flaws are rising to the top. This has a tendency to happen in people, companies and nations when they get to the top and become the all powerful one. The power goes to their head. Their flaws start to become much more prominent and magnified. The US has become more empire-like and bully-like in the decades since WW2. This is the problem.

We've made mistakes, it's true. We've gotten involved in things we should not have. But, I disagree that we're an "empire." We don't conquer and hold territory. We didn't invade Iraq, make it the 51st state, and wash our hands. Instead, we spent 10 years, a trillion dollars and nearly 5,000 American lives rebuilding and securing the country...then we left. What you see to resent is American global influence and military projection. That's where we really disagree. We shouldn't use the military all the time, but we should be able to if we need to.

Quote:

Well I don't care about democracy, but freedom...sure. If that's what we were actually doing. But again, our foreign policy has changed quite a bit over the decades to one where we'll defend and try to control any regime that does and gives us what we want rather than truly defending "freedom and democracy."

Democracy is the only way a country can be free. Democracy cannot be imposed by its very nature. As for "controlling regimes," that's a vague notion. When a regime like NK or Iran is building nuclear weapons, threatening us and our allies, threatening to disrupt global energy supplies, etc...yeah...I think we should absolutely be involved.

Quote:

So we disagree that the US you're talking about is the same US that's operating throughout the world today. I agree it might have been much more like that in the past but much less like it today.

What are we doing today that you disagree with?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You said he wants demilitarization. Absent any qualification the normal English interpretation of that statement would be to infer complete demilitarization. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

But he's close enough to that for it to be dangerous.

Thanks for your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh COME ON. You're telling me the CIA and "other intelligence agencies" believe the only reason we are disliked by certain nations is because we're "bombing them all the time?" That is completely disingenuous.

First, I don't think I said they have said it was the only reason. But they have mentioned it a reason. You have gone the other extreme and dismissed as a reason at all. Now that's completely disingenuous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

We're not respected.

You have to wonder why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

And that has nothing to do with treatment of terror detainees or troops in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with Iraq.

Nothing? Really? And you're the one throwing around that word naive to describe other people's views of the matter. Priceless!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

But, I disagree that we're an "empire." We don't conquer and hold territory. We didn't invade Iraq, make it the 51st state, and wash our hands. Instead, we spent 10 years, a trillion dollars and nearly 5,000 American lives rebuilding and securing the country...then we left.

With 14 permanent military bases in place and an Embassy the size of the Vatican?

I suppose it might be a matter of semantics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What you see to resent is American global influence and military projection.

You have to wonder why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

We shouldn't use the military all the time, but we should be able to if we need to.

Agreed...for defensive purposes. Not this new doctrine of the best defense is good offense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Democracy is the only way a country can be free.

Quite untrue. A little more in-dept study of political philosophy would benefit you here. The best guardian of freedom we've found so far is a constitutional republic. But even that is showing signs of crumbling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

As for "controlling regimes," that's a vague notion.

Yes, I suppose it is. That doesn't mean it isn't happening in some vague and non-obvious ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

When a regime like NK or Iran is building nuclear weapons, threatening us and our allies, threatening to disrupt global energy supplies, etc...yeah...I think we should absolutely be involved.

Well when that actually happens, then we can talk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What are we doing today that you disagree with?

Most of what the US government's imperial attitude is doing. Trying to gin up war with Iran. The way it handled Libya. The way it handled Iraq. The meddling in Pakistan. There's plenty not to like.

You said he wants demilitarization. Absent any qualification the normal English interpretation of that statement would be to infer complete demilitarization. Thanks for clarifying.

Oh boy, now we're playing games. Ron Paul wants to drastically reduce the size and scope of the military. True or false?

Quote:

Thanks for your opinion.

First, I don't think I said they have said it was the only reason. But they have mentioned it a reason. You have gone the other extreme and dismissed as a reason at all. Now that's completely disingenuous.

I am not arguing blowback doesn't happen. Clearly, it does. What I'm saying is that blowback is not the primary problem. The problem happens long before we get to blowback. Anti-Western sentiment didn't come from us "bombing countries for years." That's just stupid.

Quote:

You have to wonder why.

I don't. It's because everyone knows we're not going to do a damn thing. Everyone knows we have leadership that resents our superpower status, and thinks America should be less influential. We're not leading. That's the problem. It's not because we waterboarded a few people and invaded Iraq. Interestingly, Libya renounced it's nuclear ambitions shortly after we did that. At least we meant what we said then.

Quote:

Nothing? Really? And you're the one throwing around that word naive to describe other people's views of the matter. Priceless!

OK. "Little to nothing."

Quote:

With 14 permanent military bases in place and an Embassy the size of the Vatican?

I suppose it might be a matter of semantics.

That's not the same as conquering.

Quote:

You have to wonder why.

Yeah, one does wonder why you resent that.

Quote:

Agreed...for defensive purposes. Not this new doctrine of the best defense is good offense.

The best defense is, in fact, a good offense.

Quote:

Quite untrue. A little more in-dept study of political philosophy would benefit you here. The best guardian of freedom we've found so far is a constitutional republic. But even that is showing signs of crumbling.

Oh look! Condescension and more semantics!

Quote:

Yes, I suppose it is. That doesn't mean it isn't happening in some vague and non-obvious ways.

Be specific about what you mean. Examples, please.

Quote:

Well when that actually happens, then we can talk.

You see, this is where Paul supporters become delusional. Iran is doing exactly the things I mentioned and many more. And you flatly deny it because you're blinded by Paul's reality distortion field.

Quote:

Most of what the US government's imperial attitude is doing. Trying to gin up war with Iran. The way it handled Libya. The way it handled Iraq. The meddling in Pakistan. There's plenty not to like.

1. Iran: Iran is the provocateur, not the U.S., and not Israel.

2. Libya: I didn't like that either. We should have either been in or out...not both. And there should have been Congressional approval to keep the mission going.

3. Meddling in Pakistan? MEDDLING? Pakistan is a hotbed of terrorism, and isn't doing enough to stop it. We should tell Pakistan that if they don't like us taking out AQ leaders and Taliban leaders with drones, they can pound sand. Literally. Oh, and let's make sure we stop sending them billions.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

There you go. See, it's the US that is provoking. If we would only withdraw our forces, close our bases and go home with our tail between our legs, everything would be so much better. Iran wouldn't still see us a threat. They'd renounce terrorism, nuclear ambitions, and their determination to destroy Israel. There would be fewer security problems in the region. There would be more stability. It's just that poor, little, tiny Iran is SO threatened by our military presence. Got it.

Really, there is no way to sugarcoat this: The above view is fucking insane, as is why Paul can't gain real traction politically. Every time he espouses his very popular (and correct) views on Constitutional government, self-reliance, liberty and fiscal sanity, he pollutes them with this completely unrealistic, dangerous foreign policy. Every time he talks about less foreign intervention and restructuring deployments in Germany, Korea and elsewhere, a statement nations not liking us because "we keep bombing them" is not far off. He's Crazy Uncle Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

True.

OK. Let's discuss why you think this is a great idea (assuming you do).

Quote:

I guess that's a matter for debate.

Thanks for your opinion.

Again, probably a matter of semantics.

Cute.

Actually I was politely suggesting that you would benefit from a better understanding of things like democracy, etc.

No, you were being a condescending jack ass. You took a single statement and presumes it to mean I didn't realize the difference between true Democracy and Constitutional Republic.

Quote:

Are they? Really? Prove it.

It's not my job to "prove" anything, but how anyone can deny the statement I made is beyond me. Here's an interesting article to get you started. It's quite alarming.

Quote:

I might say that you are blinded by the neo-con reality distortion field.

Oh boy. I think it's time for a Godwin's Law for the term "Neocon."

Quote:

I have no doubt you see it that way.

( waits for "I see it that way because that's how it is." )

Just let me get this straight (and correct me if I've put words in your mouth, so to speak): You believe that the U.S. is the primary provocateur of the problems we have with Iran? And you further believe that if we simply started treating them differently, things would improve greatly in the Middle East?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

No, you were being a condescending jack ass. You took a single statement and presumes it to mean I didn't realize the difference between true Democracy and Constitutional Republic.

Please don't make your inferences my intentions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

It's not my job to "prove" anything, but how anyone can deny the statement I made is beyond me.

Actually, when you make the claim, the burden is on you to provide the proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh boy. I think it's time for a Godwin's Law for the term "Neocon."

Oh I see now. Its fine for you to dismiss people that don't agree with you and are, let's say, following Ron Paul as naive, blind, kooky extremists. But if someone turns that around then they're engaging in a form of "Godwin's Law."

I've noticed this tendency you have of what I'd call conversational bullying. You bark around, dismiss, call names, hand wave away and shout out, frothing at the mouth, about how the person you're debating with it wrong or idiotic or naive or extreme.

If we were in a bar, you'd be the guy "talking" to the loudest at your debate opponent, in his or her face trying to intimidate them to agreeing with you are acquiesce to your position.

You're priceless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Just let me get this straight (and correct me if I've put words in your mouth, so to speak): You believe that the U.S. is the primary provocateur of the problems we have with Iran? And you further believe that if we simply started treating them differently, things would improve greatly in the Middle East?

Actually...yes. We go over to the Gulf and blatantly demonstrate a show of power in their neighborhood. Not ours, theirs. And we expect everyone to cower and bow at the might of the US military.

Additionally we've been trying to gin up a war with them for 4-5 years now. Actually, much of this goes back much further to the 70's and the US-backed Shah. These folks have a long memory.

Most important is that he (Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper) said clearly that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and CIA chief David Petraeus said the same thing, and the latter said he had met with the head of Mossad to convey his view.

Quote:

Second, other parts of his testimony make clear that there are big divisions and conflicts among Iran's rulers. That is why he hedged by saying "some Iranian officials." This is hardly a ringing statement that says that Iran has decided to target the U.S.

You "suggested" I need a better understanding of those issues. What DID you mean?

Quote:

Actually, when you make the claim, the burden is on you to provide the proof.

You're using the tactics of the Left now. You're challenging to prove something that has been shown time and time again. Iran has repeatedly threatened the U.S. and Israel. Iran supports terrorism. I really doubt that you need me to go find a bunch of links for you. I think you're just playing games.

Quote:

Oh I see now. Its fine for you to dismiss people that don't agree with you

I'm fine with disagreement. I'm not fine with obvious denial of reality. When I see that, I'm going to call the person out on it.

I wouldn't say all Paul supporters are that way, nor is all of Paul's platform wrong. However, I have seen a tendency for Paul and his supporters to embrace things that simply don't make sense and are in obvious conflict with the lessons of history. I have seen Paul supporters ignore the obvious problems in Paul's positions and only focus on the ones that actually do make sense. I have seen Paul supporters engage in willing suspension of disbelief in terms of how the world works. When someone states that they want to drastically reduce the size of the U.S. military, or that the reason some nations act badly in pursuing terrorism, nuclear weapons, etc is that "we;re over there bombing them," I'm going to call that how I see it. Sorry if you don't like it.

Quote:

But if someone turns that around then they're engaging in a form of "Godwin's Law."

I've noticed this tendency you have of what I'd call conversational bullying. You bark around, dismiss, call names, hand wave away and shout out, frothing at the mouth, about how the person you're debating with it wrong or idiotic or naive or extreme.

If we were in a bar, you'd be the guy "talking" to the loudest at your debate opponent, in his or her face trying to intimidate them to agreeing with you are acquiesce to your position.

You're priceless.

And you're the one talking name calling? I'm simply saying that "Neocon" has become a standard attack line for those that favor a more hawkish foreign policy than say, Ron Paul does. It's no different than Jazz's reasoning on Mitt Romney vs. Obama. Romney does not equal Paul, therefore Romney is the same as Obama. Take a step back for a second and realize how myopic that sounds. It's Paul or no one. That's what his supporters think.

Quote:

Actually...yes. We go over to the Gulf and blatantly demonstrate a show of power in their neighborhood. Not ours, theirs. And we expect everyone to cower and bow at the might of the US military.

Blatantly show power? That was the entire reason for Iraq war? Iran does not own the Middle East. In fact, we need to make sure they don't dominate the Middle East, both for the sake of our own national and energy security, but for the citizens of region as well. And yes, every enemy should cower and bow at our military might. Weakness invites attack. Another lesson of history that Paul supporters seem to forget

Quote:

Additionally we've been trying to gin up a war with them for 4-5 years now.

Who is making assertions now? Let's see some evidence of that.

Quote:

Actually, much of this goes back much further to the 70's and the US-backed Shah. These folks have a long memory.

That much I agree with. Installing and supporting the Shaw is clearly something we should not have done, and it's had lasting consequences. Unfortunately we cannot undo that and now we must deal with the problem. And yes, they have a very long memory and long view of history.

You "suggested" I need a better understanding of those issues. What DID you mean?

Exactly what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're using the tactics of the Left now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're challenging to prove something that has been shown time and time again. Iran has repeatedly threatened the U.S. and Israel. Iran supports terrorism. I really doubt that you need me to go find a bunch of links for you. I think you're just playing games.

Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I'm fine with disagreement. I'm not fine with obvious denial of reality. When I see that, I'm going to call the person out on it.

Me too. And you've been called out for your "obvious denial of reality." many times and recoiled with name-calling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

However, I have seen a tendency for Paul and his supporters to embrace things that simply don't make sense and are in obvious conflict with the lessons of history. I have seen Paul supporters ignore the obvious problems in Paul's positions and only focus on the ones that actually do make sense. I have seen Paul supporters engage in willing suspension of disbelief in terms of how the world works.

I have seen a tendency for you to embrace things that simply don't make sense and are in obvious conflict with the lessons of history. I have seen you ignore the obvious problems in your positions and only focus on the ones that actually do make sense. I have seen you engage in willing suspension of disbelief in terms of how the world works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

When someone states that they want to drastically reduce the size of the U.S. military, or that the reason some nations act badly in pursuing terrorism, nuclear weapons, etc is that "we;re over there bombing them," I'm going to call that how I see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Sorry if you don't like it.

I don't mind it at all. What I mind is your strident declaration that those who disagree with you about matters that are debatable are simply wrong or naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Blatantly show power? That was the entire reason for Iraq war?

Some suggest...yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Iran does not own the Middle East.

Nor does the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

In fact, we need to make sure they don't dominate the Middle East, both for the sake of our own national and energy security, but for the citizens of region as well.

Yes, the sum total of the U.S.'s policies and actions over the past 50 years clearly demonstrates the U.S. governments concern for the citizens of the region. :roll eyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

And yes, every enemy should cower and bow at our military might.

Nice. This statement scares me more about you and your ilk than you can imagine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Do you really believe that the intent of Clapper and Petreaus' statements was to say that Iran was NOT developing a nuclear weapon? Really?

Are you claiming it wasn't? Did you read the testimony?

"Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so."

Me too. And you've been called out for your "obvious denial of reality." many times and recoiled with name-calling.

I have seen a tendency for you to embrace things that simply don't make sense and are in obvious conflict with the lessons of history. I have seen you ignore the obvious problems in your positions and only focus on the ones that actually do make sense. I have seen you engage in willing suspension of disbelief in terms of how the world works.

I don't mind it at all. What I mind is your strident declaration that those who disagree with you about matters that are debatable are simply wrong or naive.

Some suggest...yes.

Nor does the U.S.

Yes, the sum total of the U.S.'s policies and actions over the past 50 years clearly demonstrates the U.S. governments concern for the citizens of the region. :roll eyes:

Nice. This statement scares me more about you and your ilk than you can imagine.

Are you claiming it wasn't? Did you read the testimony?

"Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so."

I won't bother going point by point. You're clearly on another planet when it comes to Iran and how foreign policy works.

And so there you go again. It's not enough to simply disagree, you must also insult. Typical.

But okay...you're right (being the middle east foreign policy expert that you are). I'm wrong.

Pardon me while I go hunker down in the bunker I built when we were being told Iraq had WMDs (oops) and hoping that the one government to ever use nuclear weapons (on civilians no less) promises to protect me from those savages in Iran who don't even have one yet.

And so there you go again. It's not enough to simply disagree, you must also insult. Typical.

But okay...you're right (being the middle east foreign policy expert that you are). I'm wrong.

Pardon me while I go hunker down in the bunker I built when we were being told Iraq had WMDs (oops) and hoping that the one government to ever use nuclear weapons (on civilians no less) promises to protect me from those savages in Iran who don't even have one yet.

YOUR POSITION MAKES NO SENSE. YOU ARE DENYING FACTS. This is not mere disagreement. You are stating that Iran is not threatening Israel, the United States, etc. You are claiming Iran does not support terrorism. You are claiming that U.S. intelligence believes they are not developing a nuclear weapon.

We can disagree about what should be done wrt Iran. We can discuss military intervention and when/if it's appropriate in general. We can debate having a formal declaration of war for military action. We can talk about troop deployments and base consolidation. But for Jesus H. Christ's sake, don't go all sammi jo on me. You're better and smarter than that.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

(NOTE: I notice that the post where I use these quotes is the point at which you suddenly decided to not go "point for point" and merely hand wave away what I've said. How convenient for you.)

Hey...is that like me saying you're a neo-con?

You are taking quotes out of context and claiming they mean something different than they do. I stated Iran was developing a nuclear weapon and supported terrorism. You countered by offering Clapper's testimony. Now, you say you didn't really mean it, and that you were only trying to claim Clapper was saying Iran may respond to U.S. actions. Right.

As for "bullying," suck it up. You sound like Newt complaining about a negative campaign. I made my point stand out because it was important. You are denying facts, cherry picking statements to support your own views and then accusing me of the same. Notice, however, that I have not denied Clapper's testimony or tried to discredit it. I am simply saying that it does not represent what you say it does. It does not represent sum total of what's going on with Iran.

Edit: By the way this quote:

Quote:

"and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived US actions that threaten the regime."

...does not mean that Iran won't act regardless of U.S. actions.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Dude you look really dumb. Are you able to parse what that quote actually does say? It says that what the US is doing is having a negative effect, which is exactly what MJ and I are telling you.

THERE IS NO WAY TO ELIMINATE ALL THREAT, especially by rattling swords.

Stop being such a fucking paranoid coward and live your life to the best of your ability, accepting the fact that the threat is real but there is nothing we can really do about it, especially not taking economically devastating actions that actually put us in even more danger.

Dude you look really dumb. Are you able to parse what that quote actually does say?

It says that what the US is doing is having a negative effect, which is exactly what MJ and I are telling you.

It only says that if you intentionally distort it. It says that Iran may react to our actions, real or perceived. That's all it says, and it's nothing surprising. Trying to take that quote and parlay it into "Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons" or "US actions are negatively impacting the situation" is fundamentally stupid. If Clapper meant that, he would have said that.

Quote:

THERE IS NO WAY TO ELIMINATE ALL THREAT, especially by rattling swords.

How are we "rattling swords? Isn't Iran the one rattling swords, or do you honestly believe that poor, little Iran is just ready defend itself from the Big Bully?

Quote:

Stop being such a f*cking paranoid coward and live your life to the best of your ability,

I'm concerned about Iran...and that makes me...a coward?

Quote:

accepting the fact that the threat is real but there is nothing we can really do about it,

OK, so the threat is real. But we (as in the rest of the world) should just ignore it, because we can't do anything about it. We should just let Iran do whatever it pleases, or we might make them mad. Got it.

Quote:

especially not taking economically devastating actions that actually put us in even more danger.

No. What puts us in more danger is people like you. People that wish to appease dictators, tyrants and extremists.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You're amazing. You crack me up. OK. Let's all pretend Iran is not a threat whatsoever.

Or, in your case, let's assume it is a major, serious and imminent threat and that the US governments actions aren't making this worse by giving the appearance is would allow or act itself to preemptively strike Iran.

It only says that if you intentionally distort it. It says that Iran may react to our actions, real or perceived. That's all it says, and it's nothing surprising. Trying to take that quote and parlay it into "Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons"...[/B]

Why do you keep ignoring these statements:

"Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so."

Or, in your case, let's assume it is a major, serious and imminent threat and that the US governments actions aren't making this worse by giving the appearance is would allow or act itself to preemptively strike Iran.

When did I say it was a major, serious and imminent threat? When have I ever supported military action? What I have said is it may come to that, and that concerns me a great deal. What I've said is that Iran is ultimately the one provoking, not the U.S.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I see we are back to playing semantical games. OK, technically Iran is not "building" nuclear weapons...bad choice of words there on my part, especially considering you're determined to parse every single word. So, with that in mind let me ask this:

Would you agree that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? Would you agree that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon? And further, would Iran be pursuing a nuclear weapon if the U.S. just left them alone?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.